Are Australia's Gun Laws Childish?

I tend to think that the reason he called them "childish" is because he thinks that any country that has limits on gun ownership is a "nanny state".

Countries have common sense laws for the common good. And sensible gun control is exactly that, for the same reason that we wear seat-belts and obey traffic lights.

But many Yanks don't like the idea of any government telling them what they can and can't own. It's about defending 'Freedom'.... but not freedom from fear of being shot by a local nutcase with an AR-15 apparently.

Contact TheBlacksmith

But many Yanks don't like the idea of any government telling them what they can and can't own. It's about defending 'Freedom'.... but not freedom from fear of being shot by a local nutcase with an AR-15 apparently.Carnot

Nope, Yanks think freedom is the freedom to do whatever the hell they like.

Posted: 15 Oct 2015 18:49

Contact TheBlacksmith

But many Yanks don't like the idea of any government telling them what they can and can't own. It's about defending 'Freedom'.... but not freedom from fear of being shot by a local nutcase with an AR-15 apparently.

Nope, Yanks think freedom is the freedom to do whatever the hell they like.TheBlacksmith

Especially the freedom to be hopelessly deluded about how much freedom they have!

Contact justapassenger

I tend to think that the reason he called them "childish" is because he thinks that any country that has limits on gun ownership is a "nanny state".

Countries have common sense laws for the common good. And sensible gun control is exactly that, for the same reason that we wear seat-belts and obey traffic lights.

But many Yanks don't like the idea of any government telling them what they can and can't own. It's about defending 'Freedom'.... but not freedom from fear of being shot by a local nutcase with an AR-15 apparently.Carnot

Yanks aren’t stupider or more homicidal that Aussies.
Different history, different perception. Unlike us, they have a big thing about protecting personal liberty. However, like most ‘values’ you can twist it to whatever you want it to be. Apparently guns don’t kill anymore than knives, cars or alcohol.
Nevertheless about half of its people do want tighter gun controls and like us see it as a law and order issue.

Contact Groundrelay

They also have a big problem with accidental shootings in the USA - this year so far, the number of times a toddler has shot themselves or someone else and it's made the news (i.e. there must be more out there) is 43 - an average in excess of once a week.

If we had the same problem we could expect roughly four toddler shootings a year according to our smaller population, but I expect the outcome of our more enlightened firearms policies is that it probably happens less often than Australia loses the Ashes.

Accidental shooting is enough of a problem in the USA that it is treated by the Centre for Disease Control as a public health issue, where in Australia it's rare enough that it's an isolated incident.

Contact justapassenger

I tend to think that the reason he called them "childish" is because he thinks that any country that has limits on gun ownership is a "nanny state".

Countries have common sense laws for the common good. And sensible gun control is exactly that, for the same reason that we wear seat-belts and obey traffic lights.

But many Yanks don't like the idea of any government telling them what they can and can't own. It's about defending 'Freedom'.... but not freedom from fear of being shot by a local nutcase with an AR-15 apparently.Carnot

Contact RTT_Rules

I tend to think that the reason he called them "childish" is because he thinks that any country that has limits on gun ownership is a "nanny state".

Countries have common sense laws for the common good. And sensible gun control is exactly that, for the same reason that we wear seat-belts and obey traffic lights.

But many Yanks don't like the idea of any government telling them what they can and can't own. It's about defending 'Freedom'.... but not freedom from fear of being shot by a local nutcase with an AR-15 apparently.Carnot

Contact TheBlacksmith

I'll consent to the US NFA "childish" stance on Australian fire arm laws when they allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, oh wait there is a reason for that, they might kill people......

Yeah, what about the 'freedom' of Iran or North Korea to blow the sh*t out of the world with nuclear weapons!TheBlacksmith

Yep, its a two faced comment.

Realistically Iran will never do anything with their they just want to act tough. As the local leader here said two years back. What will Iran do with a N bomb, hit Israel? The next day Tehran will no longer exist! The GCC states are actually more concerned.

Contact RTT_Rules

I'll consent to the US NFA "childish" stance on Australian fire arm laws when they allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, oh wait there is a reason for that, they might kill people......

Yeah, what about the 'freedom' of Iran or North Korea to blow the sh*t out of the world with nuclear weapons!

Yep, its a two faced comment.

Realistically Iran will never do anything with their they just want to act tough. As the local leader here said two years back. What will Iran do with a N bomb, hit Israel? The next day Tehran will no longer exist! The GCC states are actually more concerned.RTT_Rules

Yes, I saw an item on the ABC news yesterday of a photo of a tunnel in Iran filled with rockets. I only caught it briefly but it appeared to show medium range rockets on mobile launch vehicles.

But I always take these with a grain of salt, after all it is not hard to build a bunch of metal tubes and stick them on the back of trucks. The other day there was a laughable clip of a parade in North Korea showing 'rockets' going past on the back of trucks and one of them had about a 20 degree bend in it. Someone obviously did not use enough superglue when sticking the two halves of the cardboard rockets together.

I always laugh when North Korea makes these threats about how their mighty army will defeat the US aggressors. In the unlikely scenario of conflict between North Korea and the US, the US would not even bother to set foot in Norrth Korea, so the 'mighty army' would be totally useless, the US would simply send a few drones over there to neutralise them with no need to go near the place.

Posted: 18 Oct 2015 08:56

Last edited by TheBlacksmith on 18 Oct 2015 08:58; edited 2 times in total

Contact TheBlacksmith

The yanks are just pissed that try as they might they just cannot get one of their own to knock over Bryant's numbers, not even with some of their team scores. The closest they got wasn't even an American.

Contact Aaron

Yes, I saw an item on the ABC news yesterday of a photo of a tunnel in Iran filled with rockets. I only caught it briefly but it appeared to show medium range rockets on mobile launch vehicles.

But I always take these with a grain of salt, after all it is not hard to build a bunch of metal tubes and stick them on the back of trucks. The other day there was a laughable clip of a parade in North Korea showing 'rockets' going past on the back of trucks and one of them had about a 20 degree bend in it. Someone obviously did not use enough superglue when sticking the two halves of the cardboard rockets together.

I always laugh when North Korea makes these threats about how their mighty army will defeat the US aggressors. In the unlikely scenario of conflict between North Korea and the US, the US would not even bother to set foot in Norrth Korea, so the 'mighty army' would be totally useless, the US would simply send a few drones over there to neutralise them with no need to go near the place.TheBlacksmith

The only main concern with Nth Korea is its close proximity to Seoul, less than 50km I believe. Hence it doesn't take much of an army with little warning to cause some serious harm to Seoul. In Hind sight the capital should have been moved decades ago but no one new this was going to happen.

I agree the Nth Korean army is large, but with a GDP of $40B, you don't get to fund much of an army from that, especially when there is over 1m people in the army to feed and dress. Most of its serious hardware is donated by Russia and China. Wiki says that the average pilot spend less than 10% flying time per year than US pilots. The navy is split between both coasts and the ships do not have the range to go around Sth Korea and would be wiped out if they tried to do so during a war event. I suspect should there be a war, the airforce will be as good as Iraq against the US, with most pilots flying to China to defect/escape, Navy may follow suit. The grounds forces will put up a battle due to their large numbers, but will be turned back within a few weeks due to massive losses once the Sth troops and US get organised.

For my mind, the US/Sth Korea should give up on Nth Korea, build the fence higher, make it solid and pretend they don't exist, don't talk to them, don't give them anything. Yes the people will be the ones that suffer, but they have been suffering for 50 years and not one really cares. Sth Korea watched very carefully the financial impact and social of joining Germany and has since walked away from strongly supporting reunification. There are 25m people separated from the Sth by 3 generations basically living in a time warp. Should the nth collapse it will be a humanitarian basket case that will cost the west $10's of billions and take 20 years to sort out. Meanwhile much of the population isn't technically qualified to operate a non-smart mobile phone.

Posted: 18 Oct 2015 15:05

Contact RTT_Rules

The yanks are just pissed that try as they might they just cannot get one of their own to knock over Bryant's numbers, not even with some of their team scores. The closest they got wasn't even an American.Aaron

I think Martin Bryant is living proof that it's more of a punishment to force mass-murderers to live. Apparently he tries to kill himself all the time but they always manage to resuscitate him... I'm sure if he keeps trying he'll succeed eventually.

For my mind, the US/Sth Korea should give up on Nth Korea, build the fence higher, make it solid and pretend they don't exist, don't talk to them, don't give them anything.RTT_Rules

The problem with this strategy is that our new best friends, the People's Republic of China, keep sending them all sorts of aid to keep them afloat. Without that aid that crazy dynasty would have died out years ago. Just like Israel and the United States, they keep them there to use as a proxy state against other 'enemy states' - in this case, Japan is really the main target but they also have a chuckle every time Kim threatens to bomb the United States.

I'm sure there's a lot of top brass in the People's Liberation Army would just love it if that happened... anyway that's the long and the short of why North Korea even continues to exist as a nation; it's certainly not because the younger Kim's communist system is amazingly sustainable.

Maybe under our impending Chinese-Australia Free Trade Agreement we won't be allowed to talk frankly like this about China any longer... it wouldn't surprise me given all the other rights we're signing away.

Posted: 18 Oct 2015 15:32

Contact don_dunstan

The yanks are just pissed that try as they might they just cannot get one of their own to knock over Bryant's numbers, not even with some of their team scores. The closest they got wasn't even an American.

I think Martin Bryant is living proof that it's more of a punishment to force mass-murderers to live. Apparently he tries to kill himself all the time but they always manage to resuscitate him... I'm sure if he keeps trying he'll succeed eventually.

For my mind, the US/Sth Korea should give up on Nth Korea, build the fence higher, make it solid and pretend they don't exist, don't talk to them, don't give them anything.

The problem with this strategy is that our new best friends, the People's Republic of China, keep sending them all sorts of aid to keep them afloat. Without that aid that crazy dynasty would have died out years ago. Just like Israel and the United States, they keep them there to use as a proxy state against other 'enemy states' - in this case, Japan is really the main target but they also have a chuckle every time Kim threatens to bomb the United States.

I'm sure there's a lot of top brass in the People's Liberation Army would just love it if that happened... anyway that's the long and the short of why North Korea even continues to exist as a nation; it's certainly not because the younger Kim's communist system is amazingly sustainable.

Maybe under our impending Chinese-Australia Free Trade Agreement we won't be allowed to talk frankly like this about China any longer... it wouldn't surprise me given all the other rights we're signing away.don_dunstan

Every now and then the media post an update of the miserable oxygen thief Tasmania's jail. He is actually one of the reasons I do longer support capital punishment but would rather the return to island banishment so he can rot or make his own life choices. However its likely he would have escaped the death sentence anyway as his mental capacity is supposedly quite low. However after reading more about him recently I just hope to what ever, that every time he tries to do him self in the guys in Tas pull him back from the brink. I would buy them a beer if I knew them so that bastard gets to live one more day in his own metal hell and the media report on this on a regular basis for any other potential nut case thinking of the same. I also think he does make a good case study for those who work to try and find these people before they cause harm as there was a long history leading up to that day.

Back to Nth Korea, agree China is propping them up, probably more because they don't want to have a free world country have a common border with China. It would probably be quite messy and potentially suits both sides on this. Hence I think just put the bloody wall up, cut the phone line and turn your back on Boy Kim. Let China feed the population, Let China fully fund that basket case of a country. Ignore the saber rattling and stop entertaining them. You want food, then do this, you want more food, then do that. But otherwise, look at a night photo of Nth Korea, its black. The West should produce maps of the world with a black spot over Nth Korea.

Back to the USA, what anyone in the US has ever failed to achieve is demonstrate that any place in the world can b as gun friendly as the USA and have a gun related death rate of the safest country in the world. The two do not co-exist because they cannot. While a toddler can fire a gun that was left loaded by its stupid parents, guns can never be safe. The only way to make a gun safe is remove the human factor.

Contact Aaron

The two do not co-exist because they cannot. While a toddler can fire a gun that was left loaded by its stupid parents, guns can never be safe.

Apparently Canada has lots of guns yet is still a very safe place to visit.railblogger

I work with a few Canadians and they indicated it was far more controlled than US and they don't have the gun culture of the US.

Anyway I turned to me pub mate Wiki below and you will see its fairly tough and probably similar to Australia.
If you go to the wiki page and go through the rules by country there is one very general theme, military assault rifles and hand guns are generally banned, or extremely tightly controlled.

The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws is to control firearms to improve public safety. Canadians have seen access to firearms become more restricted, but are still able to purchase them. Rifles and shotguns are relatively easy to obtain, while handguns are much more restricted. Licensing provisions of the Firearms Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage.

Users must possess a licence, called a "possession and acquisition licence (PAL)". A firearms safety course must be passed prior to applying for a PAL. A non-resident (i.e., non-Canadian) can have a "non-resident firearms declaration" confirmed by a customs officer, which provides for a temporary 60-day authorization to have a firearm in Canada.[8] There are three categories of firearms for purposes of Canadian law: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Restricted and prohibited weapons may actually be owned and used in limited circumstances.[9]

In Canada, firearms fall into one of three categories:

1. Non-Restricted: Long guns with an overall length greater than 26 inches and, if semi-automatic, a barrel which is 18 1/2 inches or longer. These can be possessed with an ordinary PAL, and are the only class of firearms which can be used for hunting, due to the ATT (Authorization to Transport) requirement for Restricted and Prohibited weapons, as well as provincial regulations. This class includes most popular sporting rifles and shotguns.

2. Restricted: This includes handguns with barrel lengths greater than 4.1 inches (105mm), and long guns which do not meet the length requirements for non-restricted, and are not prohibited. These guns require ATTs, and as such can only be shot at ranges. These arms can be possessed with an RPAL, which is similar to the PAL course, but covers restricted weapons and the increased storage requirements. One must pass the CFSC as well as the RCFSC in order to obtain their RPAL. Examples in this class include all AR-15 variants.

3. Prohibited: These weapons generally cannot be possessed by civilians. Normally, the only way to possess these is by being grandfathered in or inheriting a pistol with a barrel length at or under 4.1 inches (105mm), in which case the individual may receive the Class 7 endorsement. This class also includes prohibited devices. Many military arms fall under this classification, including all AK variants, and the FN-FAL. All handguns with a barrel length equal to or under 4.1 inches (105mm) are prohibited, as well as those chambered for the .25, and most chambered for the .32 caliber cartridge, presumably to prevent the possession of "Saturday Night Specials". Also prohibited are fully automatic weapons and suppressors. Magazines for semi automatic long guns capable of holding more than 5 centerfire cartridges or 10 rounds for handguns, are prohibited, with the exception of the M1 Garand.The rate of homicide involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.5.[10] The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.08.[11]

The legality of self-defence with the use of a firearm has been controversial in Canada, as many gun owners who had used their firearms against intruders found themselves getting charged with storage violations and homicide. After their acquittal, the Harper government eventually amended the Criminal Code to make the use of force legal, making it easier for gun owners to use firearms for self-defence.

Contact RTT_Rules

An interesting discussion. The US news report was silly, but there is much more to the subject. Australia's (and most Commonwealth countries) have political systems with strong roots in the work of the British philosopher Hobbes. His view was that, left to themselves, people would default to violence and have lives that were brutal and short. He used this to justify the need for government. Basically his view was, "you can't trust people, so you need a government to keep them in order". A later view was put by Locke, (also British), who was more optimistic about people. He thought that most would live peacefully, but government was needed to control those who didn't. He was more sceptical about government though. He thought there was just as big a risk of them becoming tyrannical and that people always needed to have a means, including revolution if needed, to topple such a regime.

British commonwealth political systems are dominated by Hobbes' views, but the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution is very much based on Locke (almost word for word in places). The ability of a people to topple a tyranny is what drove, and still drives, the US second amendment. To trust in government to them appears naive and 'childish'. Australians will find that puzzling, but the history of the two countries is quite different. The USA had an armed revolution. When they tell the Paul Revere story ("The british are coming") it was about the British coming to take over their armouries so they couldn't fight. They had a Civil War (with a population then of about 35 million, there were over 600,000 deaths - that's a much bigger event than Gallipoli was to us in comparative terms). They have a wilderness full of large and dangerous predators. They had Indian Wars that make our wars with Aboriginal Australians look small. They have a tradition of emphasising self-government, setting up their own systems and often electing their own law enforcement chiefs, whereas we have a tradition of meekly importing English colonial practice in almost everything. That makes for a society in the USA that values/trusts self-protection way more than ours.

Some parts of Australian state gun laws are good. Few civilian shooters in Australia would argue with things like safe storage, safe transport and licensing, but would suggest some of the registration practices and level of enforcement regimes have no effect and are very costly. Countries like Canada and NZ don't have the latter, yet do almost as well as Australia in preventing gun deaths. Countries like Germany (three times the gun ownership rate of Oz) have tight gun control regimes, but they are heavily risk-based, whereas ours are part risk and part politically based, and they engage positively with the legal civilian shooting community rather than treating them with suspicion and contempt. The Swiss have a very high rate of gun possession, but low gun deaths (I notice a recent newspaper article disputed this, but only by conveniently moving the decimal point on the death rates to look more like the USA).

If you look at the statistics for gun deaths in Australia over many years they have been strongly in decline. The rate of decline has been about the same before Port Arthur as after (anyone claiming otherwise can only do so by comparing the worst single year before, with the best single year afterwards - the general trend is the same). That's not an argument against gun control, but it is an argument for understanding what is causing the decline and working with it, instead of claiming it's a result of gun laws that were only there part of the time. 78% of Australian gun deaths are suicides. While gun suicides have declined, overall suicides have not. The absence of access to a firearm is hardly likely to deter an unfortunate person considering taking their own life by any suitable means. Sadly we get excited about gun control far more than about the much bigger problem of suicide in general.

The firearm ownership rate in Australia is about one tenth that of the USA. Lots of firearms in the USA are of the type that can be used in mass shootings (notably semi-automatic, centrefire longarms). These were used at Port Arthur, but are comparatively rare in Australia (only 3% of the firearms in the Australian gun buy back were of that type). There has never been an American type gun culture in Australia and there never will (regardless of regulation or not) because our histories are so different. The Eureka Stockade was an armed rebellion, but its leaders achieved more through parliamentary means in the years that followed. We tend to have a history of trust in government (though not necessarily politicians) greater than in the USA. The prohibition of firearms in the USA would be likely to have a similar effect as the prohibition of alcohol there in the 20s, if not much worse.

Gun control is politicised to the level that makes rational discussion difficult. Any attempt at making the existing Australian laws more rational, effective and cost-efficient is often met with a hysterical response. At its core there is a real risk that needs to be controlled, just like there are real core risks in things like terrorism and climate instability. But in all of them, politicians and lobbies use exaggeration and over-simplifications to appeal to our fears. ("Vote for me and I will protect you against these scary things.") And there is also the biggest difference between the USA and Oz. Here it's only the anti-gun lobby that use such tactics. In the USA it's both sides, with the NRA using the second amendment, among other things, to exploit a fear of tyranny in the tradition of Locke.

The question will be asked as to whether I am a shooter. Yes, I have had a shooting licence for a few years, which is why I know quite a lot about the subject. But please feel free to research and verify anything I've said. In closing, I have also been a pilot for many times longer. As you would all be well aware, aircraft have been used (including in Australia) as weapons for mass killing. The aviation industry certainly has more security since 9/11, but strangely I am never thought of as 'risky' because I fly, yet there will be some who think that of me because I do competitive sports shooting. I've also been a firefighter, so I know that the arson death rate has doubled in Australia in the last few decades, including three mass killings (Childers, Quakers Hill and part of the 2009 Vic bushfires), yet that gets little press.

Posted: 18 Oct 2015 23:58

Contact Oldfart

'The firearm ownership rate in Australia is about one tenth that of the USA.'

How is that rate calculated? Seems to me to be a misleading statistic, seeing as the US gun industry produces enough guns in a year in the US to put one in the hands of 1 in 5 Americans, and that production is only for US consumption. It might be if viewed as per head of population, but not in terms of the total number of guns in civilian hands. I doubt it takes into account the 40 guns owned by each gun owner in the US.

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 08:51

Last edited by TheBlacksmith on 19 Oct 2015 08:53; edited 1 time in total

Contact TheBlacksmith

Yes, the rate of ownership is on a population basis. It's about 1 in 4 in the USA, compared with about 1 in 40 in Australia. Ours has always been substantially lower than theirs mostly for the historical reasons I outlined earlier. The rate may have become higher there recently as there has been a real 'run' on buying guns and especially ammunition in the USA in recent years, driven by a fear of bans. Their production is not just for their own consumption. A high proportion of units sold in Australia would be from there. Indeed, one of the ironies is that gun availability in Australia in some recent years has been more constrained by the USA being unable to meet their local demand (let alone export) than by our laws. At one stage the waiting time from ordering for popular makes was 18 months or more. Search 'ammo shortage' on Youtube and you'll come across dozens of stories of people being unable to buy any in the USA (which probably generates even more 'panic' buying). Didn't happen here though or even next door to them in Canada.

Posted: 02 Nov 2015 21:52

Contact Oldfart

For what its worth I support Oldfart's post's, educating people to have a great respect for anything with a good bit of availible energy be it firearms, cars, almost any kind of liquid fuel, LP gas, the list could go on and on, is by far a better option than giving in to decsions promoted from hysteria.
People kill people, a fire arm, a car capable of being driven at speed do NOT kill anyone.

A side issue here is mental health, believe me in Aus one is in deep trouble with any kind of mental illness as there is almost ___________________________________________________NO____________________________________________________
support at all, you have to survive in your own personel hell, its no wonder so many take there own life. I mean a SIX WEEK wait to see a mental health councillor, thats just throwing lives away.

woodford, who suffers from PTSD.

Posted: 04 Nov 2015 15:35

Contact woodford

...A side issue here is mental health, believe me in Aus one is in deep trouble with any kind of mental illness as there is almost ___________________________________________________NO____________________________________________________
support at all, you have to survive in your own personel hell, its no wonder so many take there own life. I mean a SIX WEEK wait to see a mental health councillor, thats just throwing lives away.

woodford, who suffers from PTSD.woodford

Bouquet...
With you there mate. PTSD - no laughing matter (from experience).

Posted: 05 Nov 2015 08:11

Last edited by Groundrelay on 05 Nov 2015 09:23; edited 1 time in total

Contact Groundrelay

Sure is when it now includes monarchy, republicanism and what form it should take; world armament issues and so forth. Certainly way off the silly FoxNews America commentator pandering to their right wing NRA audience over our "childish" gun laws.

Any pistol or long arm, that is magazine fed and semi-automatically loaded, is based on the first military requirments for a weapon that could be used in close combat and to overcome the gap when crossing into enemy lines, that is they are an assault weapon and should not be in the hands of the general public. The same goes for pump action shotguns, commonly referred to by US Doughboy's during WW1 as a "trench broom", for sweeping out Germans. Bolt action rifles were also first designed for military use, but as long as they are clip fed, generally, except in the hands of well trained people/soldiers, can't do the same amount of carnage that a mag fed semi auto will.

As a former infantry soldier and former small arms coach, I thoroughly agree with the Howard Gun Laws and Buyback Scheme. The laws significantly reduced the number of gun deaths here in Australia. Could you imagine the consequences in the last few years if semi auto's, and so on, were still openly available on the legal market - Lindt cafe, NSW Police HQ, Melbourne incidents and so on.